(Original post by green.tea)
What I'm talking about is a change in attitudes towards communist dictatorships which would remove their need to keep such a military because the threat would be gone, rather than dressing up as Gandhi. In my instance, spending all your money on a military would become incorrect strategy. Excessively stifling the thought of your population would become incorrect strategy. Does the north korean leadership believe its propaganda about a military being the only way to show north korea as being among the a-list? The a-list have more skyscrapers than military. And they'd have difficulty showing their great strength at not buckling under external forces when external forces weren't pressuring them anymore.

You compare my thoughts to an insult to the intelligence of the north korean leadership when actually theyre more faith in their intelligence.

You're discussing a change in attitude from the outside with respect to North Korea, and then delegating how the North Korean attitude would necessarily change from the inside. It's not prudent to do so.

And the North Koreans have built skyscrapers, too. P'yongyang is full of them - in fact, for a period, North Korea produced large buildings at a rate unsurpassed by most developing nations. But that does not diminish the importance of the military.

"A-List" nations have skyscrapers, factories and motorways - of course. North Korea has produced such things, too (although impractical, given its current situation). But "A-List" nations consistently have strong and well-equipped armies. It's not something that North Korea will surrender or be prepared to relinquish in exchange for foreign nations simply being "nicer".

As for my theories, this is in response to someone on another forum. It's a very, very rough outline:

North Korea will take what it can get, and give as little as possible. It doesn't see the benefits being offered by the international community as outweighing the concessions being demanded. Softening the stance on North Korea has been done before, with little success. North Korea knows that the international community flip-flops between a tough, no-nonsense stance and a more diplomatic position. It responds to the former with belligerence, and the latter by taking all that's offered and relinquishing the bare minimum - then reverting back to its old position either when the well is dry, or the international community gets fed up.

I believe that North Korea needs to be eased back into the international community, and I think the focus should be investment and trade. North Korea is cash-strapped and entirely reliant on foreign aid. If this system were exchanged for an equal and mutual exchange of goods and products, with a focus on foreign direct investment, North Korea would be able to fund the revivification of its industries, and there would exist a long-term and beneficial link between the international community and the regime. It would not be a link based on friendship or mutual agreement - it doesn't need to be. It would simply be something that North Korea would not want to abandon or ruin - a permanent source of much-needed revenue. Making North Korea dependent doesn't work, and pushing it into a corner doesn't work, either. It needs to be on equal terms, without political motives. This shouldn't accompany demands that North Korea shut down its nuclear programme, or other such concessions.

Easing North Korea out of its alienation and back into the international community will relieve its paranoia and volatility - and I think more cooperation on its belligerence and militarisation should follow as a natural consequence.

(Original post by Tudball)
You're discussing a change in attitude from the outside with respect to North Korea, and then delegating how the North Korean attitude would necessarily change from the inside. It's not prudent to do so.

And the North Koreans have built skyscrapers, too. P'yongyang is full of them - in fact, for a period, North Korea produced large buildings at a rate unsurpassed by most developing nations. But that does not diminish the importance of the military.

"A-List" nations have skyscrapers, factories and motorways - of course. North Korea has produced such things, too (although impractical, given its current situation). But "A-List" nations consistently have strong and well-equipped armies. It's not something that North Korea will surrender or be prepared to relinquish in exchange for foreign nations simply being "nicer".

As for my theories, this is in response to someone on another forum. It's a very, very rough outline:

North Korea will take what it can get, and give as little as possible. It doesn't see the benefits being offered by the international community as outweighing the concessions being demanded. Softening the stance on North Korea has been done before, with little success. North Korea knows that the international community flip-flops between a tough, no-nonsense stance and a more diplomatic position. It responds to the former with belligerence, and the latter by taking all that's offered and relinquishing the bare minimum - then reverting back to its old position either when the well is dry, or the international community gets fed up.

I believe that North Korea needs to be eased back into the international community, and I think the focus should be investment and trade. North Korea is cash-strapped and entirely reliant on foreign aid. If this system were exchanged for an equal and mutual exchange of goods and products, with a focus on foreign direct investment, North Korea would be able to fund the revivification of its industries, and there would exist a long-term and beneficial link between the international community and the regime. It would not be a link based on friendship or mutual agreement - it doesn't need to be. It would simply be something that North Korea would not want to abandon or ruin - a permanent source of much-needed revenue. Making North Korea dependent doesn't work, and pushing it into a corner doesn't work, either. It needs to be on equal terms, without political motives. This shouldn't accompany demands that North Korea shut down its nuclear programme, or other such concessions.

Easing North Korea out of its alienation and back into the international community will relieve its paranoia and volatility - and I think more cooperation on its belligerence and militarisation should follow as a natural consequence.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I have no desire to see North Korea 'defeated', for some misaligned belief that western hegemony must be maintained.

I don't understand this. Personally, I believe in the means justifies the ends in most cases and if the intent which you assert (to maintain Western hegemony) and the result (is a liberated and more stable North Korea, as that would be a 'real' defeat), it would see the end of a regime that has countless human rights violations of the highest order and, on one of the highest scales to date and for someone who speaks so lowly about the United States moral authority, in contrast, it is quite flabbergasting that you have a sense of appeasement towards North Korea, as objectively, they are far more immoral and misaligned to your views of how a state-actor should conduct themselves in comparison to the United States. This is not a case of maintaining Western hegemony. North Korea is an extremely significant threat to Seoul and the Korean peninsula, it has an overwhelming conventional presence with 65% of its military stationed within 100km of the DMZ. That is, 700,000 troops, 8,000 artillery systems and 2,000 tanks, essentially a Uber-blitzkrieg strategy. The artillery systems can significantly cripple and cause high amounts of military and civilian causalities within a few hours. Not to mention, North Korea has access and armed capability of thousands upon thousands of chemical and biological weapons. Despite the rhetoric from the North Korean commanders and taking that into account, North Korea possess a far overwhelming threat (more to Seoul) to Korean stability, which the United States is obligated to maintain, whilst also performing alliance duties and cooperation with South Korea. My point is thus, while you question United States foreign policy (quite rightly too), it is very reactionary and extremely misguided, lacking informed knowledge as for someone who speaks subliminal messages of the importance of liberty and pluralism, it's as I've mentioned, staggering that you don't want to see a totalitarian and autocratic regime eradicated purely on the basis on your perception of Western hegemony (which, if you had an insight into globalization would understand why it exists).

(Original post by green.tea)
Is it the norm for governments to be honest during wartime? Anyway if people are willing to die for their countries I think it quite possible that they would be willing to accept lesser living conditions.

I personally agree that korea would be better for dropping communism. Capitalism drives things along more effectively. But it does create very unequal societies and I respect peoples right to hold the view that that's unacceptable and run their countries according to principles based on that without outside interference.

I think a point that really needs to be emphasised when discussions about North Korea arise is that essentially it -has- dropped Communism almost completely, at least their own perception of themselves now is more a fossilised image of communism superimposed on a monarchy, or vice versa depending on your preference of interpretation.

In 2009 though they formally removed all references to Communism from their constitution, and so really I think we need to recognise that North Korea's effective modus operandi is based on their own ideas of Juche and Songun, neither of which fits the internationalism or the overt nature of classic and to a lesser extent Marxist-Leninist Communism. Their economic system therefore is based almost entirely on the reinforcement, maintenance and supply of the army (Songun), and on totally rejecting outside investment (Juche).

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Lol the Western allies stockpile nuclear weapons like it's no man's business and is surprised when 'the East' wants to do the same? Absolute joke.

By no means do I think that nuclear weapons are a good thing for our shared humanity, but hey - what right does the United States have to argue against their claim for nuclear weapons when they themselves have more than every nation except Russia? As far as I'm concerned, North Korea has as valid and legitimate a right to nuclear weapons as the rest of us.

Any disagreement is just a double standard.

"Whaaattt?? They want to have weapons too? Well that's preposterous! Only we are allowed to rape, pillage and invade foreign third world nations! Only we're allowed to stockpile the most deadly weapons on the planet! This is an outrage! Their claim to nuclear technology is an affront to peace and love!!1 What's that? Our weapons? Oh, don't be silly, we only carry nuclear trident missiles of love, we're the good guys, don't worry!"

Pshh..

So you're quite open about the fact that you'd be quite happy to have a necrocratic slave state in charge of an arsenal of weapons, since this fits more easily into your world view that the West and Western society are the ultimate evils. This is absurd. This is a masochistic excuse for tyranny. It really is such a playground argument: "If he can do it I can too!" This is not the way the world works. To anyone with a tincture of moral sense it would appear that dictatorships who starve their people should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons whilst they are such a large threat to the world, and Western democracies should be allowed to. (Cue the response: "But the USA is a dictatorship that starves the Third World and threatens world peace!") Unless you adopt the relativist viewpoint that Western democracy isn't an inherently better system than Korean necrocracy. Which speaks more about you than anything you could type here.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
So you're quite open about the fact that you'd be quite happy to have a necrocratic slave state in charge of an arsenal of weapons, since this fits more easily into your world view that the West and Western society are the ultimate evils. This is absurd. This is a masochistic excuse for tyranny. It really is such a playground argument: "If he can do it I can too!" This is not the way the world works. To anyone with a tincture of moral sense it would appear that dictatorships who starve their people should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons whilst they are such a large threat to the world, and Western democracies should be allowed to. (Cue the response: "But the USA is a dictatorship that starves the Third World and threatens world peace!") Unless you adopt the relativist viewpoint that Western democracy isn't an inherently better system than Korean necrocracy. Which speaks more about you than anything you could type here.

Regardless of your fondness for the political process of the United States, the argument still stands that the US is an irresponsible arbiter, with questionable foreign policy that has, in many cases, lead to the misery of millions, including my own family.

The world is a safer place with a nuclear missile aimed squarely at every major US city, to keep it in check so long as it remains a major global power. Too long have feckless authorities in the US run roughshod over global foreign policy practices. Do I like North Korea's home office policies? No. Would they keep the US in check? Absolutely.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
The world is a safer place with a nuclear missile aimed squarely at every major US city, to keep it in check so long as it remains a major global power. Too long have feckless authorities in the US run roughshod over global foreign policy practices. Do I like North Korea's home office policies? No. Would they keep the US in check? Absolutely.

You've clearly never heard of M.A.D.

Even if there are WMDs aimed at the land bases, there are still sea units which carry nuclear missiles.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
What it does is guarantee the US will think twice before invading the region. Something I wouldn't put past US authorities given their history.

I don’t think it does. In fact, the United States will almost certainly think twice on an attack (retaliation or pre-emption). I will explain.

The DMZ is, as I have mentioned, saturated with North Korean military and that any war with North Korea will already be extremely demanding for US forces. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review estimated that the required amount of US personnel would be in realms of 500,000-600,000, comparable to the 550,000 personnel whom fought in Operation Desert Storm. It would take with the logistic capabilities that the US possess approximately 2-3 months to establish the aforementioned amount of troops in Korea to achieve an appropriate and proportionate counterattack. Not to mention the financial burden, it is important to note that North Korea already has weapons of mass destruction (thousands of tonnes, might I add) and that these weapons do not have any way of striking US homeland.

North Korean ballistic missile capability has a range of 4,000km, meaning, the only people who are at risk of North Korea’s chemical and biological weaponry are innocent civilians in Japan and South Korea. It is also important to note that the nuclear capability is also confined to its ballistic missile range. Therefore, your point of it keeping the US in check in-case of an invasion is unsubstantial when cross-referenced with strategic theory as the environment and nature of North Korea is more of a concern then North Korea’s inept nuclear device (which has half the strength and range of Hiroshima). I also do not understand how the invasion of region (which will inevitably lead to the deconstruction of the North Korean regime) is, in your eyes, a bad thing on the grounds of morality for one. So no, it doesn’t ‘guarantee’ the US to think twice about invading the region. The war itself could easily fall into a war of attrition, where those North Koreans whom are loyal to their supreme leader fall into a Viet Cong-esque style of guerrilla warfare, using North Korea’s vast amount of underground tunnel systems to wear the United States and her allies as it attacks North Korea conventionally. We need only to look at asymmetrical warfare that has dominated modern conflict to understand the burden this presupposes.

It would also be beneficial to turn the discussion into US foreign policy, which you have asserted that you ‘wouldn’t put past the US authorities given their history.’ If we are to look at US foreign policy, it is for the most part, reactionary. The reason is thus, you say that the US wishes to maintain Western hegemony. Hegemony be definition implies rule without force, hence through cultural economic strength does it rule. To understand why this has happened, it is important to take note of post-1945 US policies, containment, globalization and the ‘End of history’, i.e. the prevalence of the liberal democratic state, something which the United States is de facto father of. It is really through globalization the United States has asserted most of the hegemony authority.

Globalization is a technology-enabled process of improved communication and transport that enables freer movement of goods, people, money, technology, ideas and cultures across and within international borders and has prompted the emergence of a Western-dominated world culture, an interdependent world economy and a global community of business, political and intellectual elites. However, this has not been uniformly positive. Indeed, it has struck a global class structure, splitting the haves and the haves nots becoming very aware of what they are missing, thus creating tension and anger through “relative deprivation.” This has sparked political and cultural backlash, often violent, against the extension of Western political and cultural influence.

The globalization model serves as focus and explanation as to why the takfiri ideology has been able to flourish in areas such as Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Al-qaeda can be considered a ‘counter-globalizer’ but using the products of globalization against, firstly, the Muslin world, and secondly, the Western world. Western involvement in the Muslim world, being the forefront of US foreign policy, is to stabilize and eradicate infectious areas where the takfiri ideology may flourish. This has given the title ‘War on Terrorism’, which is the centre of US foreign policy.

It is important to understand al-Qaeda’s strategy; it can be summarized as follows by Ayman al-Zawahiri, principle al-Qaeda planner and ideologue:
AQ would focus on the greater Middle East, this would

this spirit of Jihad would…turn things upside down in the region and force the U.S. out of it. This would be followed by the earth-shattering event, which the West trembles at: the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in Egypt.”

Only after the success of the first stage, that is, the destruction of the current political order in the Muslim world, would the second stage begin, using the caliphate as a launching pad against the West to remake the world order with the Muslin world in a dominant position.

Then history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government

The takfiri aim is first to overthrow control power structures in the Muslim world and then only turn them against the West. We are already seeing 'launch pads' in Yemen and Somalia, power vacuum states that allow al-Qaeda infected communities to flourish, intimidate the local populace and indoctrinate those into the takfiri ideology to firstly, shape the Muslim world into takfiri and secondly, the result of a shake-up in the Muslim world's stability prompts not just national security, but human security threats. This can be observed in Nairobi, the USS Cole, the WTC, 9/11, Madrid bombings and 7/7. Interestingly, the Madrid bombings sparked Spanish withdrawal from operations in Iraq in 2005, meaning that takfiri extremism has a great potential to further its influence on Western governments. Western foreign policy, therefore, is a counteraction of takfiri extremism, defensive in nature as it seeks to contain the problem, not resolve it (at least not yet).

There have been great steps in the dismantlement of al-Qaeda due to US foreign policy in the past decade but greater steps need to be taken. This is essentially the crux of American foreign policy. As for American policy in respect to other states, the United States enjoys so much power that to some political commentators, it can be seen as an emerging hyperpower. Then the presumption that if China, Russia, India claimed to be so concerned of this, they would well sink their differences, join together and do everything to increase their capabilities. The reason they haven’t is thus, countries realize that although US power maybe used for objectives of which they do not approve, it is unlikely to be used to attack their core interests. They are more likely to band-wagon rather than balance, in other words, they will join with the US in hope of helping to shape its policies rather than attempt to resist them.

The US currently has a very strong position, stronger than it was in 1945, stronger than it was in 1989. It therefore has no need to 'bully' or 'war-monger' as many see the United States as, people seriously underestimate the United States beyond its defence budget. Hence, my point is this, the United States interests are of stability, stability in the Muslim world (which it has obligations to maintain) and also stability in the Western world (which it is mandated to do). This is the core foundation of American foreign policy. The intent, in which you seem to characterize it as an unconditional war-monger which you assert, is for the most part, false.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
The world is a safer place with a nuclear missile aimed squarely at every major US city, to keep it in check so long as it remains a major global power. Too long have feckless authorities in the US run roughshod over global foreign policy practices. Do I like North Korea's home office policies? No. Would they keep the US in check? Absolutely.

Read: "The world is a safer place with the North Korean dynastic dictatorship, which is shut off from the outside world and involved in a systematic starvation programme against their own people, owning nuclear weapons without interference and having the capability to launch them at American civilian areas."

All because of some personal disagreement you have with aspects of US foreign policy. Words can't express how egregiously insane you are.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Read: "The world is a safer place with the North Korean dynastic dictatorship, which is shut off from the outside world and involved in a systematic starvation programme against their own people, owning nuclear weapons without interference and having the capability to launch them at American civilian areas."

All because of some personal disagreement you have with aspects of US foreign policy. Words can't express how egregiously insane you are.

The fact that they are a dictatorship is rather moot. There are perfectly well elected representatives that have tyrannical forms of foreign policies, as well as long-standing dictators which abhor extremism and have made commitments to regional stability.

What we know is that the US is capable and willing to bomb the living day lights out of any vulnerable nation as long as it meets with American interests. North Korea is in good mind to have existential fears. In reality, I'm not any more fond of the North Korean regime than you are, but the truth is that the world is safer when the largest military power is kept in check. Listing off buzz words to generate fear of North Korea and sympathy for the US isn't my 'game'. Making sure that the US thinks twice about invading foreign nations certainly is, and with feckless US authority essentially 'gung hoing' into any international conflict, the world is a safer place with an atomic bomb aimed squarely at key US capitals.

Because I have no desire to see the US carve up another piece of sovereign territory. They have no respect for international protocol, national sovereignty or indeed, basic human rights. Generally speaking, US interests are foremost in almost all US foreign conflicts. Cutting off the claws of the United States is within the best interests of all mankind.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Because I have no desire to see the US carve up another piece of sovereign territory. They have no respect for international protocol, national sovereignty or indeed, basic human rights. Generally speaking, US interests are foremost in almost all US foreign conflicts. Cutting off the claws of the United States is within the best interests of all mankind.

You realize that North Korean nukes also prevent anyone from invading? So say North Korea decided it wanted to exterminate everyone who was left handed no nation could do anything about it but watch?

I assume if this situation were to occur you would watch the TV see people being brutally massacred by the hundred of thousand and say well at least America is being held in check.

You'll likely laugh and say what an absurd example but given that 200,000 thousand people are in prison camps its not that hard to believe that the Kim's might decide this is costing too much and decide to murder them all. This after all is not at all a rational nation we are dealing with.

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
The fact that they are a dictatorship is rather moot. There are perfectly well elected representatives that have tyrannical forms of foreign policies, as well as long-standing dictators which abhor extremism and have made commitments to regional stability.

What we know is that the US is capable and willing to bomb the living day lights out of any vulnerable nation as long as it meets with American interests. North Korea is in good mind to have existential fears. In reality, I'm not any more fond of the North Korean regime than you are, but the truth is that the world is safer when the largest military power is kept in check. Listing off buzz words to generate fear of North Korea and sympathy for the US isn't my 'game'. Making sure that the US thinks twice about invading foreign nations certainly is, and with feckless US authority essentially 'gung hoing' into any international conflict, the world is a safer place with an atomic bomb aimed squarely at key US capitals.

You think calling North Korea a slave state is a "buzz word"? Can you think of a better descriptive?

And bear in mind that you're saying these nukes should be aimed at US cities - not US military centres. Not only are you giving a free hand to the Kim dynasty to acquire weapons of mass destruction, you are desperately hoping that they aim them at millions of innocent civilians. I'll remember this the next time you make some comment about the Americans inflicting civilian casualties in Iraq.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
You think calling North Korea a slave state is a "buzz word"? Can you think of a better descriptive?

And bear in mind that you're saying these nukes should be aimed at US cities - not US military centres. Not only are you giving a free hand to the Kim dynasty to acquire weapons of mass destruction, you are desperately hoping that they aim them at millions of innocent civilians. I'll remember this the next time you make some comment about the Americans inflicting civilian casualties in Iraq.

Okay, time to wade through the absolute nonsense of this post. I'm going to make this as succinct at possible.

- Ironically, you're talking about giving NK a 'free hand'. This isn't a playground game, and isn't simply about taking sides. US authorities are feckless in their desire to invade any hole that meets their interests. It's rather simple, the world needs a deterrent.

- Yep, a 'weapon-of-mass-destruction' aimed at a nation armed with almost more 'weapons-of-mass-destruction' than any other nation that is armed to the teeth and willing to invade any foreign nation so long as it meets their interests be it in the form of military assisted coups or full blown land invasion.

- The US will only respond to the tactical reality of war. As iterated previously, I hope they're used to keep the US in check. The point isn't for them to be used, but yes - if aiming them at US civilians is what will keep the world safe, then so be it. So far, the United States is the only nation to have detonated an atomic bomb on civilians.